...puts his patients into hypnosis, and asks a series of questions that help the patient remember who they were in their past life...

This ^^ right here in bold. I don't need to read any further or watch the video. (As Median mentioned previously) Dr. Newton is not approaching this from a neutral stand-point. He already assumes that an afterlife exists. He already assumes that reincarnation occurs. He is actively encouraging/guiding these people to reveal past life information assuming that every word out of their mouths is true. Why would he assume this? Most likely because he presupposes it to be true and/or he desperately wants it to be true.

^^^^Exactly. This is about as scientific as 1)gathering random samples of small children in US shopping malls during the month of December and 2)asking them if Santa Claus is real and 3)tallying the results and 4)deciding that Santa exists based on over 50% of the respondents saying yes.

Actually the Santa project would be more scientific than this guy's hypnosis results, because at least you started with a random sample......

These are some ways to make this guy's work closer to valid science:

1)Start with a random sample, or a least a less biased sample. Don't select anyone who expresses a strong prior belief for or against past lives; only choose people who are neutral on the issue. You should not have people who want /don't want past lives to be true contaminating the data.

2) Assign the people randomly to different hypnotherapists who all use the same set of questions. Make sure the questions are general ones and not leading toward or away from past lives. Like: "Where are you right now?" Not: "Are you in the past?"

3) Have transcripts of the sessions gone over by independent researchers to look for patterns or references to past lives. Count misses (no reference to past lives) along with hits (references to past lives). Publish the raw data along with the summary reports.

4) Finally, any time there is any past life reference that includes factual details, have independent researchers check the facts for accuracy. Whenever possible, try to determine if there was a way for the person hypnotized to have obtained the information beforehand.

5) Don't just accept that the person was Suzette, the 14-year old second handmaiden to Marie Antoinette at the time of her beheading. If someone says they were Suzette, find out if there really was any such person and check out the details for accuracy. Was the queen's bedchamber actually painted green and pink? Did the queen have a mole on her left ankle? Can that information be found on google?

If there were studies that, minimally, did the above and were statistically sound, we might have some basis to think there might be past lives. I would be interested in looking further. But the stuff this guy does with hypnotizing people and telling us what they say? BOGUS.

...puts his patients into hypnosis, and asks a series of questions that help the patient remember who they were in their past life...

This ^^ right here in bold. I don't need to read any further or watch the video. (As Median mentioned previously) Dr. Newton is not approaching this from a neutral stand-point. He already assumes that an afterlife exists.

Actually, no. He was an atheist and a traditional hyno-therapist -- he had no interest in doing this type of hypnosis. This is explained in the first 5-7 minutes of the video clip i posted. He explains that his very first past-life regression session happened by accident.

....in the first 5-7 minutes of the video clip i posted (he)explains that his very first past-life regression session happened by accident.

Okay. Does the video address ANY of nogodsforme's point about the nature of scentific studies? Does the video explain how - after that first tale of regression was told to him - he went back searching archives to establish the legitimacy of everything he was told, and how he eliminated the possibility that the subject had seen or heard the information somewhere and simply assimilated it into a "memory"?

Atheists are the bad guys. They killed over 100 million people in under a 100 years. Nice going.

Ironically, your god apparently killed over 200 million within a day.

Ignorance is bliss.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Heck, atheists have never killed anyone for the cause of "atheism", so the point is rather flat.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Atheists are the bad guys. They killed over 100 million people in under a 100 years. Nice going.

Your assumption is in error b/c you are acting as if non-believers in your superstition killed people because they didn't believe in your superstition. FAIL. You might as well point to every serial killer who was a non-astrologer and say that they killed their victims because they were "a-astrologerists".

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. People do things for a variety of reasons and one of those reasons has to do with who they are, not who they are not. Atheism (just like non-astrology) is a LACK of belief. It is NOT a belief in anything. Theism is A BELIEF in a God. Atheism is the LACK of that belief.

Do you believe in Unicorns? If not, we could say "HA! Every bad thing you do is because you believe in a-unicornism!" and this accusation would be false (just like the one you're making about atheists).

Besides which, some of the persecutions by Christians on non-Christians (like forced conversion of Jews), the Spanish Inquisition and, of course, witch hunting suggests that Christians can manage their own brand of mass killing. I'd hate to see them in charge of modern weaponry!

Atheists are the bad guys. They killed over 100 million people in under a 100 years. Nice going.

But they were also Aflyingshoeists...and the class of Human Aflyingshoeist killed even more...why not portray them as the bad guys?

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

But they were also Aflyingshoeists...and the class of Human Aflyingshoeist killed even more...why not portray them as the bad guys?

You know, the Aeiffeltowerists used to have a similar track record as the Aflyingshoeists insofar as body count is concerned. However, sometime around 1889 the number of deaths attributable to Aeiffeltowerists essentially dropped to zero. And to this day, the number of deaths caused by Aeiffeltowerists is zero.

I think it's safe to say that the morality of the Aeiffeltowerists reigns supreme. I suggest we all adopt that moral framework immediately.

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Such a response from a pastor is not a surprise. It is a version of the catch all "it's God's will" answer that makes it really frustrating to have intellectual discourse with a religious person.

The critical aspect of the question "Why won't god heal amputees?" is the fact that for a limb to grow back would qualify as a miracle because there is no off-chance of it happening. As such, it makes sense for people who believe that god answers prayers to only pray about things that are actually possible. Doing so provides an opportunity for chance and probability to reinforce their belief that god answers prayers.

However, no pastor will ever answer this question honestly and thoughtfully because they are unable to without spewing out a version of the catch-all answer "It's god's will." That or realize that religion is bullshit.

If someone prays for all the wounded soldiers who have lost limbs to have their arms and legs restored like new, how would that be selfish?

I would bet that many a devastated parent in Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Laos, Afghanistan or Iraq has prayed desperately for a god to help their amputee child. Most of those kids will either die prematurely from nasty infections, or spend their lives as invalids in horrible pain, many becoming addicted to opium or other drugs. They will not "win at life".

Their parents would give up their own lives, or give away all they owned and devote themselves to missionary work, or become a nun or monk--whatever the god wanted, if that god would magically restore their child's lost arm or leg. But no. Nice gods you folks have there.

Can you imagine how hard someone would work for any god who healed their amputee child, or army friend? If I saw that happening, I would convert to that god's religion on the spot.

But again, no. God would rather lose all those opportunities to save souls, and get his message across unambiguously. He likes to see amputees suffer. Because homie god don't play dat.

The following is a link to a Christian site that tries to answer why God doesn't heal amputees. I find it rather infuriating. It basically states that we will be rewarded in the afterlife and that is a lot better than having your limbs regenerated in this life.

Yep, just making excuses for a god who isn't there. Anyone who comes up with the idea that we can't know that no one has ever regrown a limb is, quite frankly, nutty! It is common experience that this does not happen and has not happened in 2,000 years at least. I'm not sure that we can take the stories healing of ears and lepers quite on face value as actualt events in any case.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

The following is a link to a Christian site that tries to answer why God doesn't heal amputees. I find it rather infuriating. It basically states that we will be rewarded in the afterlife and that is a lot better than having your limbs regenerated in this life.

ya. That one's been done to death here. Try the search function to find where.